The left argues that these documents disprove the GOP’s assertion that the FBI was motivated by political bias.

The right argues that the documents substantiate claims of bias made in the Nunes memo released by House Republicans last February.

“Much of what’s disclosed in the FBI documentation discredits parts of the Nunes memo... Judges weighing the application — all four Republican appointees — were made aware of the circumstances of the Steele dossier, and they were provided with evidence beyond its contents anyway.”

Vox

“The footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.”

Lawfare Blog

“It’s clear that the government worked to hide any Americans’ names in the application, including Trump’s, who is referred to as ‘Candidate #1.’That appears to counteract one of Nunes’s other complaints — that the FBI should have specifically disclosed who hired the source, as if that would make more of a difference to the court than acknowledging that Steele’s employers were ‘likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [the Trump] campaign.’”

New York Magazine

The right argues that the documents substantiate claims of bias made in the Nunes memo released by House Republicans last February.

“The FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by ‘Candidate #2’ and ‘Political Party #2,’ meaning the Democrats... Democrats argue that the FISA Court judges should have been able to figure out, from [the] obscure description, that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. That seems a pretty weak argument.”

at least in the court of public opinion) starts to collapse. But it strains credulity to think that the government would cite specific meetings between Page and named Russian officials if they have nothing to back it up but that dossier.”